I recently stumbled upon a SIFT implementation for C#. I thought it would be great fun to play around with it, so that's what I did.
The implementation generates a set of "interest points" for any given image. How would I actually use this information to compare two images?
What I'm after is a single "value of similarity". Can that be generated out of the two sets of interest points of the two images?
You need to run SIFT on both images so you get interest points (lets call them Keypoints) in both images.
After that you need to find matches between keypoints in both images. There are algorithms implemented for that purpose in OpenCV.
The value of similarity can be computed out of the number of matches. You can consider that if you get more than 4 points the images are the same, and you can also calculate the relative rotation between them.
You can use number of matches as similarity metric.
Related
I'm using OpenCV ORB for checking whether two images are similar or not. ORB is efficient and gives me best results most of the time. But, in some cases, ORB's output is not satisfactory. I'm using distance parameter, got after KnnMatch, to identify similar images.
My logic - If the distance value range starts from a smaller value, then the images are similar.
My code is available in this link
After comparison, the result says that Image2 and Image3 are similar to Image1
Should I change this distance depended logic? Will an approach, combined with machine learning and OpenCV ORB, be a solution?
I have done a project similar to yours, and I also experienced issues with ORB. ORB is good for matching key points, and I have found it to be relatively good at that while using it the same way you have, sorting by distance.
However, if you want to determine how similar images are instead of just the keypoints of the image, then instead of counting how many keypoint matches you have in images, try to compare the distance(s) between different keypoints on the same image to the distance(s) between the corresponding points on the other image.
I want to estimate transformation matrix between two images, which are taken at the same scene from different positions.
I tried two methods:
First method related links:
https://docs.opencv.org/2.4/doc/tutorials/features2d/feature_homography/feature_homography.html
https://docs.opencv.org/3.3.0/dc/d2c/tutorial_real_time_pose.html
I use extraction of keypoints, descriptions, and image match to find corresponding points between two images, then use findHomography to compute the matrix. However, these image match method doesn't work well although I used various techniques mentioned in the above links.
Second method, I tried esimateRigidTransform. However, it returns empty matrix for following two example images.
In the doc of the function, "Two raster images. In this case, the function first finds some features in the src image and finds the corresponding features in dst image. After that, the problem is reduced to the first case." It seems it uses similar ideas as the first method.
My questions:
1. Why esimateRigidTransform returns empty matrix for such similar images?
2. Are there better method for computing transform matrix between similar images which are taken at the same scene from different positions? For example, can I skip the feature detection and match steps？
Thanks.
Background:
Assuming there are two shots for the same scene from two different perspective. Applying a registration algorithm on them will result in Homography Matrix that represents the relation between them. By warping one of them using this Homography Matrix will (theoretically) result in two identical images (if the non-shared area is ignored).
Since no perfection is exist, the two images may not be absolutely identical, we may find some differences between them and this differences can be shown obviously while subtracting them.
Example:
Furthermore, the lighting condition may results in huge difference while subtracting.
Problem:
I am looking for a metric that I can evaluate the accuracy of the registration process. This metric should be:
Normalized: 0->1 measurement which does not relate to the image type (natural scene, text, human...). For example, if two totally different registration process on totally different pair of photos have the same confidence, let us say 0.5, this means that the same good (or bad) registeration happened. This should applied even one of the pair is for very details-reach photos and the other of white background with "Hello" in black written.
Distinguishing between miss-registration accuracy and different lighting conditions: Although there is many way to eliminate this difference and make the two images look approximately the same, I am looking of measurement that does not count them rather than fixing them (performance issue).
One of the first thing that came in mind is to sum the absolute differences of the two images. However, this will result in a number that represent the error. This number has no meaning when you want to compare it to another registration process because another images with better registration but more details may give a bigger error rather than a smaller one.
Sorry for the long post. I am glad to provide any further information and collaborating in finding the solution.
P.S. Using OpenCV is acceptable and preferable.
You can always use invariant (lighting/scale/rotation) features in both images. For example SIFT features.
When you match these using typical ratio (between nearest and next nearest), you'll have a large set of matches. You can calculate the homography using your method, or using RANSAC on these matches.
In any case, for any homography candidate, you can calculate the number of feature matches (out of all), which agree with the model.
The number divided by the total matches number gives you a metric of 0-1 as to the quality of the model.
If you use RANSAC using the matches to calculate the homography, the quality metric is already built in.
This problem is given two images decide how misaligned they are.
Thats why we did the registration. The registration approach cannot answer itself how bad a job it did becasue if it knew it it would have done it.
Only in the absolute correct case do we know the result: 0
You want a deterministic answer? you add deterministic input.
a red square in a given fixed position which can be measured how rotated - translated-scaled it is. In the conditions of lab this can be achieved.
I want to design an algorithm that would find matches in images of the same apartment, when put up by different real estate agents.
Photos are relatively taken in similar time so the interior of the rooms should not change that much but of course every guys takes different pictures from different angles, etc.
(TLDR; a apartment goes for sale, and different real estate guys come in and make their own pictures, and I want to know if the given pictures from various guys are of the same place)
I know that image processing and recognition algorithm selections highly depend on the use case, so could you point me in correct direction given my use-case?
http://reality.bazos.sk/inzerat/56232813/Prenajom-1-izb-bytu-v-sirsom-centre.php
http://reality.bazos.sk/inzerat/56371292/-PRENAJOM-krasny-1i-byt-rekonstr-Kupeckeho-Ruzinov-BA-II.php
You can actually use Clarifai's Custom Training API endpoint, fairly simple and straightforward. All you would have to do is train the initial image and then compare the second to it. If the probability is high, it is likely the same apartment. For example:
In javascript, to declare a positive it is:
clarifai.positive('http://example.com/apartment1.jpg', 'firstapartment', callback);
And a negative is:
clarifai.negative('http://example.com/notapartment1.jpg', 'firstapartment', callback);
You don't necessarily have to do a negative, but it could only help. Then, when you are comparing images to the first aparment, you do:
clarifai.predict('http://example.com/someotherapartment.jpg', 'firstapartment', callback);
This will give you a probability regarding the likeness of the photo to what you've trained ('firstapartment'). This API is basically doing machine learning without the hassle of the actual machine. Clarifai's API also has a tagging input that is extremely accurate with some basic tags. The API is free for a certain number of calls/month. Definitely worth it to check out for this case.
As user Shaked mentioned in a comment, this is a difficult problem. Even if you knew the position and orientation of each camera in space, and also the characteristics of each camera, it wouldn't be a trivial problem to match the images.
A "bag of words" (BoW) approach may be of use here. Rather than try to identify specific objects and/or deduce the original 3D scene, you determine what "feature descriptors" can distinguish objects from one another in your image sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag-of-words_model_in_computer_vision
Imagine you could describe the two images by the relative locations of textures and colors:
horizontal-ish line segments at far left
red blob near center left
green clumpy thing at bottom left
bright round object near top left
...
then for a reasonably constrained set of images (e.g. photos just within a certain zip code), you may be able to yield a good match between the two images above.
The Wikipedia article on BoW may look a bit daunting, but I think if you hunt around you'll find an article that describes "bag of words" for image processing clearly. I've seen a very good demo of a BoW approach used to identify objects such as boats and delivery vans in arbitrary video streams, and it worked impressively well. I wish I had a copy of the presentation to pass along.
If you don't suspect the image to change much, you could try the standard first step of any standard structure-from-motion algorithm to establish a notion of similarity between a pair of images. Any pair of images are similar if they contain a number of matching image features larger than a threshold which satisfy the geometrical constraint of the scene as well. For a general scene, that geometrical constraint is given by a Fundamental Matrix F computed using a subset of matching features.
Here are the steps. I have inserted the opencv method for each step, but you could write your methods too:
Read the pair of images. Use img = cv2.imread(filename).
Use SIFT/SURF to detect image features/descriptors in both images.
sift = cv2.xfeatures2d.SIFT_create()
kp, des = sift.detectAndCompute(img,None)
Match features using the descriptors.
bf = cv2.BFMatcher(cv2.NORM_HAMMING, crossCheck=True)
matches = bf.match(des1,des2)
Use RANSAC to compute funamental matrix.
cv2.findFundamentalMatrix(pts1, pts2, cv2.FM_RANSAC, 3, 0.99, mask)
mask contains all the inliers. Simply count them to determine if the number of matches satisfying geometrical constraint is large enough.
CAUTION: In case of a planar scene, we use homography instead of a fundamental matrix and the steps described above work out pretty nicely because homography takes a point to a corresponding point in the other image. However, Fundamental matrix takes a point to the corresponding epipolar line in the other image, which makes the entire process a bit less stable. So I would recommend trying these steps a few more times with a little bit of jitter to the feature locations and collating the evidence over more than one trial to make the decision. You can also use more advanced steps to introduce robustness to this process but only if the steps described above don't yield the results you need.
What are the ways in which to quantify the texture of a portion of an image? I'm trying to detect areas that are similar in texture in an image, sort of a measure of "how closely similar are they?"
So the question is what information about the image (edge, pixel value, gradient etc.) can be taken as containing its texture information.
Please note that this is not based on template matching.
Wikipedia didn't give much details on actually implementing any of the texture analyses.
Do you want to find two distinct areas in the image that looks the same (same texture) or match a texture in one image to another?
The second is harder due to different radiometry.
Here is a basic scheme of how to measure similarity of areas.
You write a function which as input gets an area in the image and calculates scalar value. Like average brightness. This scalar is called a feature
You write more such functions to obtain about 8 - 30 features. which form together a vector which encodes information about the area in the image
Calculate such vector to both areas that you want to compare
Define similarity function which takes two vectors and output how much they are alike.
You need to focus on steps 2 and 4.
Step 2.: Use the following features: std() of brightness, some kind of corner detector, entropy filter, histogram of edges orientation, histogram of FFT frequencies (x and y directions). Use color information if available.
Step 4. You can use cosine simmilarity, min-max or weighted cosine.
After you implement about 4-6 such features and a similarity function start to run tests. Look at the results and try to understand why or where it doesnt work. Then add a specific feature to cover that topic.
For example if you see that texture with big blobs is regarded as simmilar to texture with tiny blobs then add morphological filter calculated densitiy of objects with size > 20sq pixels.
Iterate the process of identifying problem-design specific feature about 5 times and you will start to get very good results.
I'd suggest to use wavelet analysis. Wavelets are localized in both time and frequency and give a better signal representation using multiresolution analysis than FT does.
Thre is a paper explaining a wavelete approach for texture description. There is also a comparison method.
You might need to slightly modify an algorithm to process images of arbitrary shape.
An interesting approach for this, is to use the Local Binary Patterns.
Here is an basic example and some explanations : http://hanzratech.in/2015/05/30/local-binary-patterns.html
See that method as one of the many different ways to get features from your pictures. It corresponds to the 2nd step of DanielHsH's method.